34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
cars | jobs | place an ad | subscribe
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
News

ARA director: First phase of plan short by at least $3.2M
BY GEORGE W. RHODES SUN CHRONICLE STAFF
Friday, October 16, 2009 2:17 AM EDT




Top Headlines
KP area students eat fresh

North woman was dead for 43 minutes

No shift on Foxboro policy

Seekonk could decide on stipends

Clerk charged in $19,000 theft

Print this story
Photo Reprints
RSS
Forums
 AddThis
ATTLEBORO - In what may have been one of his last official acts for the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority, ARA Executive Director Michael Milanoski said this week that a scaled-back version of the first phase of the downtown revitalization plan is underfunded by at least $3.2 million.

The figure came in a presentation to the ARA board and other city officials.

However, the number could be much higher because two key funding agencies, the Federal Transit Administration and the state's Executive Office of Transportation, are refusing to pay for more work on the project until the city reaches a consensus on the new plan and how to pay for it.

Mayor Kevin Dumas slammed the plan two weeks ago, claiming it was at least $5 million short. He criticized the ARA for failing to get funding commitments, along with the lack of a sound budget for the plan.

The plan was cut back late in the summer at the request of the Federal Transit Administration because of protracted conflict between the ARA and city, rising costs and scarce funds. Milanoski, who along with three other ARA staffers is to be laid off soon because of a lack of money, told the board that a reduced Phase I has about $6 million available for this fiscal year's $5.7 million budget, as long as the ARA and city agree on how to proceed and get federal approval.

But if the city and ARA don't get that approval, about $3.5 million of that money could be delayed or lost.

Milanoski said there's no funding lined up to pay the 2011 fiscal year cost of Phase I that's budgeted at $3.2 million.

The scaled back plan would include the relocation of Wall Street's intersection with South Main so that it's closer to Mill Street.

It would also include the development of a GATRA bus terminal parallel to the southbound railroad tracks, an access road to the terminal, partial construction of a road parallel to Ten Mile River, demolition of the vacated Automatic Machine Co. buildings, construction of a parking lot where those buildings now stand and relocation of the public works yard to Lamb Street or Pond Street North.

Parts of the original project to be delayed include acquisition of the Reynolds and Markman Co. property, which may be contaminated, acquisition of the former Johnson Fabrication site and the full construction of the riverfront road to Olive Street.

Meanwhile, plans to remove pollutants from Automatic Machine and to go out to bid for demolition were approved by the board.
Return to Previous Page  


 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » 27 comment(s) « Hide Comments

Post Your Comments

s-plumb wrote on Oct 17, 2009 5:58 PM:

" When they open the books, I'd like to know how much we paid the O'Neil lobbying firm, to convince us to convince the municipal council that we need the ARA projects. I'd like to know IF this money was given to others who defended Milanoski.
Most of all, Id like to know how and why McGovern appeared to take a stand against this city, as he was a sponsor of these lobbying efforts against us. "

Report Abuse

doug wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:16 PM:

" Ho-hum!!! "

Report Abuse

kevin h. wrote on Oct 16, 2009 4:04 PM:

" Government just doesn't get the concept of "value". "

Report Abuse

s-plumb wrote on Oct 16, 2009 4:00 PM:

" I understand your point, driving by, with much less traffic than years past, it's adequate and looks better. But what would the situation be if there were normal volume?
If Attleboro ever comes back to life, the square will be just as bad off, if not worse, than before.
It took over 1 1/2 years and a ton of money, for very little functional relief.
I think that's a fairly objective summary. "

Report Abuse

ricknkim wrote on Oct 16, 2009 3:21 PM:

" I am not claiming it was a smooth process, professionaly managed or on time. I am simply saying that it is a major improvement and as is, works well/looks good. "

Report Abuse

s-plumb wrote on Oct 16, 2009 3:12 PM:

" Nov 1st 2002 was the original projected completion date (forecast in Sept '2002), yet it wasn't until the late spring of '2004, after the DPW took over, that the paving was complete.
How do you spell success? "

Report Abuse

s-plumb wrote on Oct 16, 2009 2:49 PM:

" All the grants...taxpayer money for that. You have low standards for success. "

Report Abuse

ricknkim wrote on Oct 16, 2009 2:43 PM:

" I guess I just see those things as minor except for the left turn signal. If that were available, which would greatly improve safety, I think the project was successful. "

Report Abuse

s-plumb wrote on Oct 16, 2009 2:42 PM:

" BTW: I do believe I've mention CS in any depth for many months. It was brought up by another today, and I merely pointed out the obvious failure. "

Report Abuse

s-plumb wrote on Oct 16, 2009 2:38 PM:

" Success at County Square is not in the cards, but one would think completion is. The set of lights are not adequate; that's obvious. But the entire traffic pattern violates the "contract" with the city. No left turns were to be allowed into Lexington Ave, and several other areas. There's an oversized electrical box to control the traffic lights permenantly blocking the sidewalk.
Also, I don't think I'm the only one who is critical of the outcome. Imagine if there commuters in Attleboro...but as luck would have it there's been a decline in traffic of about 12%; probably more. "

Report Abuse

kevin h. wrote on Oct 16, 2009 2:15 PM:

" I agree with common sense. Try to turn left from County to Rt123. It's a dangerous game of chicken. "

Report Abuse

ricknkim wrote on Oct 16, 2009 2:11 PM:

" My point was that you've been complaining about County Square since I can remember and it is getting old to me, that's all. The square, to me, looks good and operates quite well compared to how it was in my opinion. Not sure exactly what else needs to be done that is CRITICAL to its completion and signed off as a success in your book. "

Report Abuse

s-plumb wrote on Oct 16, 2009 12:03 PM:

" Which is it? Do we do things we've already paid for (ie accountability), or sweep it all under the rug. After all: "That money may not have been from the city itself, but it came from state/federal agencies which are funded by, you guessed it, our tax dollars." R&K 16-oct-09
Now the tune is: Whether out of the pockets of individuals, our or collective pockets, we should just let it go. Good plan. "

Report Abuse

common_sense wrote on Oct 16, 2009 11:21 AM:

" rick, does that mean I shouldn't expect that left turn signal anytime soon? I guess no big deal as long as Tiffany St is open. "

Report Abuse

ricknkim wrote on Oct 16, 2009 11:14 AM:

" I'm not sure the County Square project could ever have been completed to Steve's approval - not to say there were not delays and poor handling of the project. But - for the vast majority of other residents who use it, it is a huge improvement and appears complete. Move on and let it go? "

Report Abuse

steves wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:50 AM:

" Thanks for the replys, so there have been a few sucessful projects.
Now for the $64.00 question at what direct cost to us,not counting the grants and fed money wich I understand is still tax money. with them laying off 5 employees with at least 1 making over 100k, what was their true costs to the city per year? "

Report Abuse

s-plumb wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:32 AM:

" There was no need for the County Square project, but it was hammered through. It was to take 6 weeks, but the final paving was done until about 2 years later. Businesses were all but shut down for weeks at a time, and those affected were threatened in various ways to comply with Milanoski's plans.
BTW: the project is still not complete "

Report Abuse

ricknkim wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:28 AM:

" I think ARA accomplishments are minimal compared to the time, effort and money spent to date. Return in investment is negative and when it is stated that "at no cost to taxpayer", that is completely wrong. That money may not have been from the city itself, but it came from state/federal agencies which are funded by, you guessed it, our tax dollars.

I do think they did a decent job on County Square - traffic flows better, the sidewalks are nice and the square is more appealing to the eye. "

Report Abuse

common_sense wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:18 AM:

" I never realized they were involved in County Square, makes sense though there is not even a left turn singnal from County onto Rt123 so yes I can beleive the ARA was involved, lol. "

Report Abuse

attleboro's own wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:15 AM:

" Steves. Your question is perhaps directed at the ARA as currently staffed. For the record, in the past, the ARA successfully developed the Attleboro Industrial Park on Lower County Street, completed the first downtown renewal project where city hall is now sited and razed the Bates and Klink and Sugarman buildings where Christopher Heights is on South Main.
All with zero cost to Attleboro taxpayers. "

Report Abuse

common_sense wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:15 AM:

" If theres no funding, no downtown project. I would rather see my tax dollars spent on improving schools, at least property values will increase. What is the downtown going to provide us, more out of town commuters rushing in and out of the T-station? And no they do not shop locally when they get off the train, look at the HD shopping center in the evening, they can't get out of their quick enough. "

Report Abuse

attlebrockton wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:03 AM:

" Steves ,
The ARA's claim to fame is the Swank building that the gov't refurbished and cleaned & the ARA sold to Cookson. They also reference County Square project ,which as Steve Plumb wiil tell you is no great shakes. Personally I think the greatest accomplishment is the Director's ability to cover up all this bad news for so long. "

Report Abuse

steves wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:35 AM:

" I've asked this before and never got an answer.
What has the ARA actually done for the city as far as completed projects?
This is a genuine question, I haven't heard anything of them except failed or 1/2 done jobs. "

Report Abuse

IShouldBeMayor wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:32 AM:

" HEy, maybe this should have had NO city or government involvement and allowed to happen with private development...it would have been done by now and no taxpayer would have spent a dime on it. "

Report Abuse

s-plumb wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:13 AM:

" Milanoski is full of it. He's either lying now, or has lied all along. My guess is both.
The $3-$4M debt was an estimate from over a year ago of just the IBP; and that with limited information. This was always thought to be conservative. Add lawsuits of several million dollars, interest and penatlties on loans, as well as daily operating overhead, and we're probably looking at $6M-$7M. "

Report Abuse

do you get it? wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:08 AM:

" Sounds like they need to hire the people that run the MBTA to manage this project. The T has been running things in the red for ever and they are expanding the rail to the S East coast to increase the amount of Red. "

Report Abuse

kevin h. wrote on Oct 16, 2009 7:58 AM:

" JUST STOP IT!!!

- $5 Million.....Downtown
- $3-4 Million...IBP
__________________________
- $8-9 Million total ARA fup.

JUST STOP IT!!
When you are in a hole, stop digging! "

Report Abuse